Skip to main content

About your Search

20121128
20121128
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
the c.i.a. writes up a report that explains this is a terrorist attack and someone in the administration amended it to say or it could have been about the movie. >> they certainly didn't want to say al-qaeda, hamas or hezbollah. they didn't want to blame someone early. here is the white house defending their position, the spokesperson president press briefing. >> there are no unanswered questions about ambassador rice's appearance on sundays shows and the talking points that she used for those appearances that were provided by the intelligence community. those questions have been answered. >> cenk: yeah, look, again i'm not putting it on susan rice. someone changed the talking points. john mccain is on with her on that same face the nation says no way it's a terrorist attack, it was coordinated. >> they had the talking points and went against them. you're with the three amigos, you're the fourth amigo. >> cenk: let's go on to something different. touree. >> old white establishment folks wrongly and repeatedly attacking a much younger black woman moments after an election in which blacks
there was some cia activity there. what exactly it was and what the cia's told involvement was, why there was a consulate there, wasn't even a consulate, didn't do normal consulate duties. what was it all about? by won't know until the investigation is completed and released. >> senator ayotte said when you're an ambassador to the united nations -- i want to get your thoughts on this. she said, look, you go well beyond unclassified talking points in your daily preparation responsibilities. i guess the implication being that she would have been aware of other things that were different or contradicted directly to what she went and said on television. does this cast any doubt on her story? general clark has made what i've heard from everybody who knows her that she is an incredibly honest and forthright person. >> well, i think there's a bigger question here, erin, and that's the credibility of the administration on these national security issues and whether they politicized a national security issue that led to the death of four americans. i mean, i do -- i don't agree that the ameri
." in a report requested by the c.i.a., the national research council wrote this year that -- quote -- "while climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict." and back to 2006, the center for naval analysis, a federally funded research and development center that's advised the navy and marine corps since 1942, convened a military advisory board of retired three star and four-star admirals and asked them to support on the threat of security on climate change. the report state that had quo question while uncertainty exists regarding the future extent of predicted climate change, the trends are clear. the nature and pace of climate change is being observed today pose grave implications for our national security. and of course, as the presiding officer knows, in the five years since, the evidence has tracked the worst of those climate change projections, not the most gentle. our nation's top military strategists, nation's top researchers, national research council and national academy of sciences all have recommended that our national security
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)